Academic Interventions for School
Psychologists: Without the I,
the R Won’t Happen
Matthew Burns, Ph.D.
Interventions for Children with LD
Reading comprehension
Direct instruction
Psycholinguistic training
Modality instruction
Diet
Perceptual training
Kavale & Forness, 2000
1.13
.84
.39
.15
.12
.08
Individualized instruction , at no cost to the
parents or guardians, to meet the unique
needs of a child with a disability.
The answer??
General Education
Special
Education
Education
Remedial
Education
Gifted Education
“All hands on deck” – Judy Elliott, Chief Academic
Officer of Los Angeles Unified Schools
RTI
The systematic use of assessment data to
most efficiently allocate resources in order
to enhance learning for all students.
Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006
Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions
(Burns, Jimerson, & Deno, 2007)
Tier I: Universal screening and progress
monitoring with quality core curriculum: All
students,
Tier II: Standardized interventions with small
groups in general education: 15% to 20% of
students at any time
Tier III: Individualized interventions with in-depth
problem analysis in general education : 5% of
students at any time
RTI and Problem-Solving
TIER III
TIER I I
TIER I
Problem Solving
• Tier I – Identify discrepancy between
expectation and performance for class or
individual (Is it a classwide problem?)
• Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual.
Identify category of problem. (What is the
category of the problem?)
• Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual.
Identify causal variable. (What is the causal
variable?)
TIER II
Category of the Deficit
National Reading Panel
• Is phonemic awareness instruction effective in
helping children learn to read?
• Reviewed 52 studies of PA instruction.
• Three general outcomes were explored
– PA tasks such as phoneme manipulation,
– spelling,
– and reading tasks such as word reading, pseudoword
reading, reading comprehension, oral text reading,
reading speed, time to reach a criterion of learning, and
miscues
National Reading Panel Results
• PA instruction demonstrated better efficacy
over alternative instruction models or no
instruction
• Improved PA measures (strong), reading
(d = .53) and spelling skills
• Teaching one or two PA skills was
preferable to teaching three or more
• PA instruction benefited reading
comprehension (Ehri et al.).
Means and Ranges of Effect Sizes by
Reading Outcome Measure
N
Mean
ES
SD
Minimum
Maximum
Pseudowords
24
.84
.80
-.19
3.60
Words in
Isolation
48
.92
.89
-.05
4.33
Contextual
Reading
24
.37
.38
-.37
1.18
Assess 4 NRP Areas
• Phonemic Awareness
– Phoneme segmentation fluency
• Phonics
– Nonsense word fluency (WJ Pseudoword)
• Fluency
– Oral reading fluency (TOSCRF)
• Vocabulary/Comprehension
Category of Problem MN HS
•
•
•
•
•
9-12 with approximately 1600 students
69.2% pass reading
9th-10th grade
28% low on MAP (~225)
45% Low on TOSCRF (~100)
– 64% low on phonics (~65)
– 36% acceptable phonics (~36)
Targeted
Interventions
Control
Waitlist Control
Variable
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Fluency Pretest
90.17
7.65
89.88
9.73
na
na
Fluency Posttest
98.33
7.27
94.32
8.77
na
Na
.84
.60
.54
.97
na
Na
MAP Fall
206.00
9.25
211.00
10.11
210.37
6.56
Map Winter
217.21
7.56
212.40
8.06
212.78
6.04
Maze Growth
ANCOVA for fluency F (1, 42) = 4.98, p < .05, d = .50
ANCOVA for Maze slope F (1, 44) = 1.04, p = .31, d = .32.
ANCOVA for MAP F (2, 74) = 5.84, p < .05, partial eta squared = .14.
Florida Center for Reading Research
www.fcrr.org
• Click – For Teachers
• Click – Interventions for Struggling Readers
• Click – Supplemental and Intervention
Programs
http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/CReportsCS.aspx?rep=supp
Meta-analytic Research for Reading Interventions
Auditory Reception
.21
Auditory Association
.44
Visual Reception
.21
Visual Association
.39
Auditory Sequential Memory
.32
Visual Sequential Memory
.27
Psycholinguistic training
.39
Modality instruction
.15
Perceptual training
.08
Kavale 2001, Kavale & Forness, 1999
Meta-analytic Research for
Reading Interventions
Formative evaluation
.71
Fuchs & Fuchs (1986)
Direct instruction
.84
Explicit reading
comprehension instruction
1.13
Kavale & Forness (2000)
Task Completion
On-Task Behavior
Task Comprehension
Baseline
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
MOTIVATION
(Gickling & Thompson, 1985)
• Independent Level
– 98% - 100% known material
• Instructional Level
– 93% - 97% known material
• Frustrational Level
– Less than 93% known
Instructional Level
• Betts (1946)
• “A comfort zone created when the student has
sufficient prior knowledge and skill to successfully
interact with the task and still learn new information”
(Gravois & Gickling, 2002, p. 888).
– Optimal level of challenge
• Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development
(ZPD)
INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL
Percentage
of Knowns
Instructional Match
• How closely a student skill level matches the difficulty
of the instructional material (Daly, Martens, Kilmer, &
Massie, 1996)
• Improves student learning (Burns, 2002; Burns, 2005;
Daly, Witt, Martens, & Dool, 1997; Shapiro, 1992).
• Match between student skill and instructional material
is an important functional variable for student learning
within response-to-intervention (Gresham, 2001).
Curriculum-Based Assessment
• Term was first coined by Gickling in 1977 (Coulter,
1988).
– CBA was designed to systematically assess the
“instructional needs of a student based upon the
on-going performance within the existing course
content in order to deliver instruction as effectively
as possible” (Gickling, Shane, & Croskery, 1989,
pp. 344-345).
• Assesses match between student skill and curriculum
for instructional planning (Burns, MacQuarrie, &
Campbell, 1999).
Curriculum-based approaches
CBA - ID
CBM
• Measures accuracy
• Measures fluency
• Instructional,
planning,
managing, and
delivery
• Instructional
effectiveness
• Assesses
instructional level
Reliability
IR
AF
RT r
Second Grade
.99
.84
.90
.88
Third Grade
.90
.88
.93
.81
Fourth Grade
.99
.81
.96
.83
Total
.99
.86
.92
Burns, Tucker, Frame, Foley, & Hauser, 2000
RT t
.85
Advantages over IRI
• Psychometric data
• Research based
• No assumptions for generalizability
• IRIs passages are inconsistent
Drill Tasks
• Independent Level
– 86% - 100% known material
• Instructional Level
– 70% - 85% known material
• Frustration Level
– Less than 70% known
Gickling & Thompson, 1985
Drill and Practice
• The most effective device that can be applied to
learning is to increase the amount of drill or
practice" (Chase & Symonds, 1992; p. 289)
• The primary benefit of efforts to increase
motivation was an increase in practice.
• Teaching basic skills through drill tasks led to
increased performance of more advanced skills
(Dehaene & Akhavein, 1995; Jones & Christensen,
1999; Tzelgove, Porat, & Henik, 1997)
Academic Deficits in Children Labeled LD
• Poor reading fluency among children with
phonemic awareness (Chard, Vaughn,
Tyler, 2002)
• Poor fluency in retrieval of math facts (Miller
& Mercer, 1997)
• Difficulty retrieving spelling words from
memory (Lerner, 2003)
Incremental Rehearsal
• Developed by Dr. James Tucker (1989)
• Folding in technique
• Rehearses one new item at a time
• Uses instructional level and high
repetition
Mean Number of Word Retained
7
Words Retained
6
5
TA
DS
IR
4
3
2
1
0
1-day
2-day
3-day
Time Interval
7-day
30-day
Correlation between retention
and receptive vocabulary
1 day
2 days
3 days
7 days
30 days
TA
.32
.27
.32
.23
.08
DS
.22
.25
.17
.16
.20
IR
-.16
-.13
.06
.04
-.07
These results are “astounding” (Daly & McCurdy, 2002; p. 457).
Incremental Rehearsal Effectiveness
Bunn, R., Burns, M. K., Hoffman, H. H., & *Newman, C. L. (2005). Using
incremental rehearsal to teach letter identification with a preschool-aged child.
Journal of Evidence Based Practice for Schools, 6, 124-134.
Burns, M. K. (2007). Reading at the instructional level with children identified as
learning disabled: Potential implications for response–to-intervention. School
Psychology Quarterly, 22, 297-313.
Burns, M. K. (2005). Using incremental rehearsal to practice multiplication facts
with children identified as learning disabled in mathematics computation.
Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 237-249.
Burns, M. K., & Boice, C. H. (2009). Comparison of the relationship between words
retained and intelligence for three instructional strategies among students with
low IQ. School Psychology Review, 38, 284-292.
Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Foley, S. (2004). Preteaching unknown key words with
incremental rehearsal to improve reading fluency and comprehension with
children identified as reading disabled. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 303314.
Matchett, D. L., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Increasing word recognition fluency with an
English language learner. Journal of Evidence Based Practices in Schools, 10,
194-209.
Nist, L. & Joseph L. M. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of flashcard drill
instructional methods on urban first-graders’ word recognition, acquisition,
maintenance, and generalization. School Psychology Review, 37, 294-208.
PRETEACHING
Putting the two together
Means, Standard Deviations, and Dependent t-test Results for CBM
Reading and Change Scores
Median Baseline
Treatment Group
M
SD
41.57 23.44
Control Group
M
SD
41.72
26.64
t =.07
Final (15th) Score
65.17
29.71
47.45
25.33
t = 5.65*
1.81
.94
.42
.94
Slope of Growth
Note – CBM scores are words read correctly/minute
* p < .001
Cohen’s d = 1.47 SD units
F = 15.75*
• Category count score was correlated
with the progress slope for all 58
students
• r = .80, p < .001
• Assessed relationship between reading
material presented at the instructional
level and reading growth.
Percentage of Intervals On Task
100
90
Preteaching
80
70
Baseline Condition
60
50
40
30
Thomas
20
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sessions
9
10
11
12
13
14
Percentage of Intervals On Task
100
90
Preteaching Condition
80
70
60
50
40
30
Baseline Condition
Michael
20
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Sessions
10
11
12
13
14
15
Percentage of Intervals On Task
100
90
Preteaching Condition
80
70
60
50
40
30
Baseline
20
Christopher
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sessions
9
10
11
12
Instructional Level for Drill Tasks
Percentage
Percentage
of
Knowns
of Knowns
Application of Interference
• Rate of Acquisition
– The amount of new
information a student
can learn before
interference occurs.
• Rate of Retention
– The amount of
previously learned
data that can be
recalled at a later
time.
Modifying instruction based on acquisition and retention rates
increases academic achievement (Roberts et al., 1991; Shapiro, 1992)
Criterion-Related Validity
(Burns & Mosack,
2005)
Off-Task Behaviors/Minute
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Acquisition Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Word Number
8
9
10
Off-Task Behaviors/Minute
3
Acquisition Rate
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Word Number
7
8
9
10
Intervention Assessment Model
National Reading Panel
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Berninger et al., 2006
Comprehension
Instructional Hierarchy:
Stages of Learning
Acquisition
Proficiency
Generalization
Adaption
Learning
Hierarchy
Slow and
Accurate but
Can apply to
Can use information
inaccurate
slow
novel setting
to solve problems
Instructional
Hierarchy
Modeling
Novel
Discrimination
Problem solving
Explicit
practice
opportunities
Independent
practice
Timings
Immediate
feedback
training
Differentiation
training
Simulations
instruction
Immediate
corrective
feedback
Haring, N. G., & Eaton, M. D. (1978). Systematic instructional procedures: An
instructional hierarchy. In N. G. Haring, T. C. Lovitt, M. D. Eaton, & C. L.
Hansen (Eds.) The fourth R: Research in the classroom (pp. 23-40).
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Accuracy
• Contextual Reading
– 93% - 97% known material
• Everything Else
– 90% known
Rate
Once a student is accurate, the main
concern is proficiency which is measured by
rate
– Rate is commonly measured by schools
 e.g., CBM
Rate cut points are often based on
normative expectations for the skill of
concern
– Rate is also an indicator of when a student moves
from the proficiency to the generalization stage
Comprehension
YES
START HERE
Assess Fluency
Fluent? (ORF)
NO
Assess Phonetic Skills
Adequate? (LSF, NWF)
Fluency Intervention
YES
Accuracy or Proficiency
NO
Assess Phonemic Awareness
Adequate? (PSF, ISF,
CTOPP)
NO
Phonemic Awareness Intervention
Phonics Intervention
YES
Accuracy or Proficiency
Learning
Hierarchy
Acquisition
Phonemic
Awareness
Explicit instruction
in blending and
segmenting
(Blackman et al.,
2001)
Phonics
Fluency
Incremental
Incremental Rehearsal
Rehearsal with letter for words (Burns, 2007)
sounds (Tucker,
1989)
Listening passage
preview (Rose &
Explicit instruction in Sherry, 1984)
letter sounds
(Carnine et al.,
Supported Cloze
2004)
Reading (Rasinksi,
2003)
Phrase drill (O’Shea,
Munson, & O’Shea,
1984
Word boxes & word Repeated reading
sorts (Joseph, 2000) (Moyer, 1982)
Read Naturally
Proficiency
Language &
Listening (Adams
et al., 1998)
Generalization
Discrimination and differentiation training
Adaption
Problem-solving activities and simulations
Results
Peter
• Second Grade
• NWEA test this fall, he scored at the 4th
percentile for reading
• Reading fluency score was 13 WRC/M
– Well below average range.
• Participates in Read Naturally, (where he is
placed at grade level 1.0)
Peter
• ORF: 13 wcm with 60% accuracy
• Phonics:
– NWF: 24 sounds/minute with 67% known
• 2nd grade rate cut score is 30 words/min
• Phonemic Awareness
– PSF: 38 with 93% accuracy
• Cut score is 35 sounds/min
100
Targeted Intervention
Baseline
90
Letter Sound Accuracy - % Correct
80
Student 2
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weeks
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
70
60
50
Letter Sound Fluency - Letter Sounds
40
30
20
Student
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weeks
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
100
3rd grade male
Targeted Intervention
Baseline
90
Median fluency
score was 30
words/minute with
between 68% and
72% correct
(below 10th
percentile)
80
Accuracy - % Words Read Correctly
70
60
Student 1
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Weeks
70
60
Nonsense word
fluency = 65
sounds (50 is
established)
correct/minute with
94% accurate
50
Fluency - Number of Words Read Correctly/Minute
40
30
20
10
Student 1
0
-10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Weeks
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3rd grade male
100
Scored below
the 5th in
reading
95
90
Accuracy - % Words Read Correctly
85
80
38 words/minute
on grade level
texts with 83.5%
known
75
70
Student 3
65
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Weeks
Nonsense word
fluency = 62
correct sounds
per minute with
91% accuracy.
(50 is
established)
70
60
50
Fluency - Number of Words Read Correctly/Minute
40
30
20
Student 3
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Weeks
8
9
10
11
12
13
Instructional Hierarchy for Conceptual Knowledge
Phase of
Learning
Acquisition
Examples of Explicit Instruction
appropriate in basic principles
instructional and concepts
activities
Modeling with
math manipulatives
Proficiency
Generalization
Independent
practice with
manipulatives
Instructional games Use concepts to
with different
solve applied
stimuli
problems
Immediate
Provide word
feedback on the
problems for the
speed of
concepts
Immediate
responding, but
corrective feedback delayed feedback
on the accuracy.
Contingent
reinforcement for
speed of response.
Adaption
Instructional Hierarchy for Procedural Knowledge
Phase of
Learning
Examples of
appropriate
instructional
activities
Acquisition
Proficiency
Explicit instruction Independent
in task steps
practice with
written skill
Modeling with
written problems
Immediate
feedback on the
speed of the
response, but
delayed feedback
on the accuracy.
Immediate
feedback on the
accuracy of the
work.
Contingent
reinforcement
Generalization
Adaption
Apply number
operations to
applied
problems
Use numbers to
solve problems
in the
classroom
Complete real
and contrived
number
problems in the
classroom
Conceptual CBM (Helwig et al.
2002) or Application?
Phase of Learning for Math
Conceptual
Procedural
Acquisition
Proficiency
Generalization
Adaption
Acquisition
Proficiency
Generalization Adaption
MULTIPLICATION FACTS
Conceptual Assessment
Problem 1
Please use a picture to solve the problem
3 x 4 = ___
Problem 2
Please use a picture to solve the problem
5 x 6 =___
Vandewalle, 2008
Ratings for Problem 2
• Counts with understanding
• Understands number sign
• Understands the facts of adding/
subtraction or multiplication/division
of whole numbers
• Uses visual model (Correct relationship
between diagram and problem)
• Uses an identifiable strategy
• Answers the problem correctly
Ratings for Problem 2
• Counts with understanding
4
• Understands number sign
2
• Understands the facts of adding/
subtraction or multiplication/division
of whole numbers
2
• Uses visual model (Correct relationship
between diagram and problem)
2
• Uses an identifiable strategy
1
• Answers the problem correctly
4
Broken Multiplication Key
Directions: Partners pretend that one of the number keys
on the calculator is broken. One partner says a number,
and the other tries to display it on the calculator without
using the “broken” key.
Keeping Score: an extended challenge (optional): A
player’s score is the number of keys entered to obtain the
goal. Scores for five rounds are totaled, and the player with
the lowest total wins.
Example: If the 8 key is “broken,” a player can display the
number 18 by pressing 9 [+] 7 [+] 2 (score 5 points); 9 [x] 2
(score 3 points); or 72 [÷] 4 (score 4 points).
35
Digits Correct Per Minute
30
Procedural Intervention - IR
Conceptual
Intervention
Baseline
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
50
45
Baseline
Procedural
Intervention -IR
Digits Correct per Minute
40
Conceptual
Intervention
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Basics to Reading Intervention
• Steps
– I do
– We do
– You do
• Standard Error Correction
– This word/sound is _______
– What word/sound is this?
– Good, this word/sound is ______
Rhyme - Acquisition
• Provide – “Tell me a word that rhymes
with bat.”
• Categorize – “Which word does not
rhyme with bat- cat, big, or sat?”
• Judging – “Do bat and cat rhyme?”
Blending - Acquisition
• Two sounds – “What word does /a/ - /t/
make?”
• Entire word – What word does /c/ - /a/ /t/ make?
Segmenting - Acquisition
• Count – “How many sounds do you
hear in sit?”
• Tap – “Tap your finger for each sound in
the word sit.”
• Name – “Tell me the sounds you hear in
sit.”
Manipulation - Acquisition
• Deletion – “If you take away the /s/ in
sit, what is left?”
• Substitution – “Change the /n/ sound in
next to /b/. What is the new word?”
• Reversal – “Reverse the sounds in net.
What is the new word?”
Phonemic Awareness – Proficiency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rhyme game
Sound game
Switcheroo
Consonant riddles
Picture searches
Row your boat
Sound of the day
Rhyme Games
• Select a common song/rhyme (Twinkle
Twinkle Little Star)
– Recite it in a whisper
– Say a word loudly when it rhymes
• The ship is loaded with –
– Sit at a table or in a circle
– You say the ship is loaded with (pick a word)
– Toss or slide (on a table) a soft object to child
– The child creates a rhyme
Consonant Blends
• Give a two phoneme word
– Lay, no, row, to, lie, rye, pie, low, ray
• Have the child identify the two
phonemes that they here
• Add a consonant sound to the
beginning to create a new word (e.g.,
lay and play).
Internal Consonant Blends
• Give a two phoneme word
– so, die, tie, boo, say, see, coo, sigh, pay, two,
fee, go, bow
• Have the child identify the two phonemes
that they here
• Add a consonant sound AFTER the first
sound create a new word (e.g., so and
slow).
Column Header
First row modeled for
student
Student competes
remaining items
independently
Cat
Plate
Bait
Hat
Fate
Train
Bat
Cake
Afraid
Mat
Late
Paint
Flat
Debate
Rain
Splat
Rake
Wait
Listening Passage Preview
•
•
•
Strong intervention for children with
high error rates and low fluency
Goal is accurate and fluency reading
of this connected text. Hopefully
generalizes to similar texts
Make sure student is paying attention
– be careful of subvocal rehearsal
Listening Passage Preview
1. Select a passage to student that he/she will
read for class
2. Present the text and tell him or her that you
will read aloud while he or she follows
along. This will help him or her read the
page better.
3. Tell the student to follow along with finger
4. Read the text at a comfortable rate while
monitoring if child is following
5. Have the student read the passage aloud
Phrase Drill
•
•
•
•
Encourages words by word reading
Strong error correction technique
Likely to generalize learned words
Takes more time than other approaches
to error correction
Phrase Drill
1. Have the student read a text while you
highlight errors on an examiner copy
2. After reading the text, show the student your
copy
3. Read the error word correctly to the student
4. If more than one error in a sentence, read the
error words and model reading the sentence
5. Have the student read the sentence/phrase
that contains the word three times
Repeated Readings
• One of the oldest and most wellresearched interventions
• High OTR
• Generalizes to passage and similar
ones
Reading Comprehension
• Occurs when the reader develops mental
representations of the text and uses them to
interpret the text (Pressley & Afflerbach,
1995).
• Critically low among middle- and highschool students (RAND Reading Research
Group, 2002).
Comprehension is affected by
1 & 2) Background knowledge and
vocabulary
3)
Correct inferences about reading
4)
Word reading skill
5)
Strategy use
(Cromley & Azevedo, 2007)
Previewing (Graves et al., 1983)
1.
2.
3.
4.
Provide each student the text
Provide a synopsis
Ask questions about the topic
Describe major story elements: setting,
characters, point of view (narration), and
description of the plot.
5. Present the names and descriptions of main
characters
About 15 minutes
Preteach Keyword (Burns et al., 2004)
• Keywords - “central to understanding the
meaning of the reading passage” (Rousseau
& Yung Tam, 1991, p. 201)
• Preteach with Incremental Rehearsal
(Tucker, 1989)
About 7 minutes
Results
Baselin
e
Mean
SD
Previe
w
Mean
SD
Keywo
rd SD
Mean
2.95
1.61
4.42
2.39
4.89
1.94
F = 8.52*
NA
NA
.32
.17
.83
.46
t = 5.02*
Statistic
Number of Comprehension
Questions Correct
Questions correct for each
Minute of Instructional Time
p < .025
100
Key Words
90
80
70
60
Baseline
50
40
30
20
Group
10
0
-10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Strategies
What was Taught
Materials
How it was Taught
Reciprocal Teaching
(Palinscar& Brown, 1984)
4th grade Read
Naturally
passages and
questions
Each individual strategy was
taught by:
•Activate Prior knowledge
Modeling
•Predict
Working with the student
•Summarize
Having the student work
independently
•Generate Questions
•Clarify
Strategy General
• Model, lead, and test (repeated as needed)
• Model the strategy with think aloud
• Work with the students to perform the
strategy together
• Have the students perform the strategy
independently on a new passage.
• Teach one strategy per session
Predict
1. Look at the main title
2. Scan the page to look at major headings
3. Look at any illustrations
4. Predict what the story is about
5. Write predictions down and read
Activate Prior Knowledge
1. Predict
2. Ask students to think about their own
life experiences related to that topic
3. Predict how the story will cover that
topic.
Summarize
1. Read the passage
2. Write one or two sentences that sum it up
3. Two common errors
– Providing too much detail
– Only referencing a section of the passage
4. Provide feedback with questions
– Does your summary cover the whole story, or just
a part of it?
– If I asked you to tell me what the story was about
using only 2 sentences, what would you say?”).
Generate Questions
1. Create a list of main ideas
2. Write down a question that the main idea
will answer.
– “Who”, “What”, “Where, “When”, “Why” and
“How.”
3. Look at the summary you just wrote, does
that answer your questions?
Clarifying
1. Look for unknown words or unclear
sentences
2. Use the surrounding text or a dictionary to
figure out the meaning
3. Replace the word in the text and read the
sentence aloud
4. Ask prompting questions (e.g., “Does that
make sense to you?”)
Main Idea
What was Taught
Materials
How it was Taught
Finding the main idea
(van den Broek et al.,
2003) and answering
comprehension
questions
4th grade Read
Naturally passages
and comprehension
questions
1. Students independently
previewed passage,
wrote a prediction, and
read passage
2. Main idea extraction was
modeled
3. Students completed
comprehension
questions and were
prompted to use the text
to find the answers.
Main Idea
1. Read the text
2. Model stating the main idea
3. Have students answer comprehension
questions.
4. Give them a highlighter and asked to
highlight all of their answers in the text.
5. Provide assistance if needed and model
6. Provide individual feedback to the group
Inference
What was Taught
Materials
How it was Taught
Teaching inferential
questions (Carnine et al.,
2004)
4th grade Read
Naturally passages
and
comprehension
questions
Students independently read
passages and answered
comprehension questions
with support from
interventionist
Determining relationships
Relationship stated
Relationship not stated
Generalize inference rules
into reading passages
Interventionist discussed
answers using corrective
feedback on errors
Inference – Relationship Stated
1. Provide a rule
– e.g. the more milk you drink, the stronger
your bones
2. Provide questions for which the rule is
required to find the answer
– Chris drank one glass of milk. Jeff drank 3
glasses of milk. Who is more likely to have
stronger bones?
3. Model, lead, and test stating the rule and
relating the answer to the rule
Inference – Relationship Not Stated
1. Give a series of questions based on prior
knowledge
– e.g., The snow was falling as Cho walked
home from school. How do you think Cho felt:
a. hot, b. cold, or c. tired?
2. Model finding clues to help
– e.g., It’s snowing, what do we know about the
temperature when it snows?
Inference – Relationship Induced
• Nicole had oatmeal and a banana for
breakfast and a salad for lunch. What do
you think Nicole will choose for dinner,
chicken and vegetables or a McDonald’s
hamburger?
1.Model finding information to induce a rule
– e.g. Nicole likes healthy foods
2.Answer the question
3.Model, lead, & test
http://usm.maine.edu/sehd/future/
burns258@umn.edu